Is DSLR the terminator for super 8 and 16mm?

[carllooper]

The only way to stand out from the crowd using film is to alter the conditions in which a film is projected.

Apart from projecting film (which is the simplest method - but with the least reach) what else can one do - especially in the digital age?

The biggest obstacle is that once a film becomes digitally de-contextualised it is only distinguishable by it's "faults" - or virtues if one prefers. But all these virtues are easily simulated in a digital work. They no longer operate as an argument or way of standing out. For example Peter Jackson recommends adding grain to a digital work. "It is easy" he says. And he is right. It is easy.

However one of the great things about the internet, over TV and the cinema, is the ability to re-contextualise a work. In the world of art, in which I operate, there is an important component of a work called the Artists Statement.

The equivalent of an Artists Statement, on the internet, is the text that one can place under a film, eg. "This video was shot on film". But there is so much more that can be written. And it is this which will allow you to stand out from the crowd when using film.

Do it. Use it. Sell your films on the realities that went into making the film. And by "sell" I mean that word to be interpreted in all the ways it can be interpreted.

Why do diamonds (functioning as jewellery) sell for more than glass if glass looks the same as a diamond.

Why can a canvas, splattered in house paint, and embedded with cigarette butts fetch six million dollars?

How does a one minute film, at a film festival, become the overriding topic of discussion during the lunch break?

Carl

[Pj]

From my personal experience, I do find that want to use digital systems like DSLR’s. A typical film screening in my department where films made by students are showcased, which is about 15 short films showcased in an evening. A small, but growing percentage of films are now shot on 16mm and an even growing number on Super 8. This is interesting since in the last two year ago almost every film made in the department had been originated on digital systems such as the Mini DV, DVCAM and DSLR’s.

I find the films that are shot on 16mm and Super 8 do stand out, simply put they are the ones that are talked about more and remembered the most. In my opinion they stand out for a number of reasons; It could be that the ones shot on film are just better made and better told stories. From experience I know you do work differently with film, I find everyone is more focused on getting things right and work better, shoots are much smoother and stress free. The fact some people, many of whom never used film before, are originating their work on 16mm and an increasing number of people are using Super 8 demonstrate that people need all kinds of tools to express their creativity.

I have just done a lecture, which I am going to put on my website which is about the need for emerging filmmakers to get noticed in a difficult industry at a difficult time.

P

[CinemanUK]

This conversation is stupid. I'm out.

We just have different views based on different perceptions.

[Mr Blackstock]

A lot of people have made some good points here, and a lot of ideas on how the super8 community might hang on into the future. But for myself, and I imagine many others, cost is the deciding factor.

In Australia, and I imagine most countries outside the EU and the U.S, film prices are high, Super8 even higher, and so too are lab and transfer prices. This is not a case of a few companies hiking the prices to tighten a monopoly, this is simply a reaction to a shrinking market. When a young film maker does buy a camera, they soon discover these costs and either limit their creativity or go straight to digital. The market shrinks further, and the remaining companies have to raise prices just to remain viable. A vicious cycle.

Each passing week more and more film makers in countries outside the world's biggest markets are putting down their cameras for good. it will not take long before economic reasoning forces the largest companies in these smaller economies to close their doors.

Film makers in the larger economies will enjoy Super8 for at least another decade, as there are more customers because film is still relatively cheap, therefore more labs and transfer houses offering services because the market is still strong. I wonder if the moderators of this forum are able to graph the decline in posts from film makers where the film market has shrunk or disappeared over the years, and possibly corelate the figures to closures or price rises, would be interesting reading...

The last film I made was my last. For a few reasons, the biggest was cost. Simple. locally for me to purchase, process, and transfer one film incl. postage =$95 AUD, or $97USD for 3.20min @ 18fps. I could go international for cheaper film, but as most companies insist on courier delivery, the cost is almost equal.

R.I.P Super8 film making in the southern hemisphere...

[CinemanUK]

From my personal experience, I do find that want to use digital systems like DSLR’s. A typical film screening in my department where films made by students are showcased, which is about 15 short films showcased in an evening. A small, but growing percentage of films are now shot on 16mm and an even growing number on Super 8. This is interesting since in the last two year ago almost every film made in the department had been originated on digital systems such as the Mini DV, DVCAM and DSLR’s.

I find the films that are shot on 16mm and Super 8 do stand out, simply put they are the ones that are talked about more and remembered the most. In my opinion they stand out for a number of reasons; It could be that the ones shot on film are just better made and better told stories. From experience I know you do work differently with film, I find everyone is more focused on getting things right and work better, shoots are much smoother and stress free. The fact some people, many of whom never used film before, are originating their work on 16mm and an increasing number of people are using Super 8 demonstrate that people need all kinds of tools to express their creativity.

I have just done a lecture, which I am going to put on my website which is about the need for emerging filmmakers to get noticed in a difficult industry at a difficult time.

P

I have used video for many years. My first video camera was a VHS unit. I then updated to Hi8 (tape) which yielded better results but meant the end of the VHS equipment. Finally, I updated again to HD which record on to SD card which, in turn, has led to the abandonment of Hi8. This yields even better quality.

Notwithstanding these sequential improvements in quality, however, film very much has a place in my heart. Starting as a boy, with a 9.5mm Pathescope camera moving through 8mm and on to Super8 and finally on to 16mm cinematography (although I still have an interest in Super8), I have to say that for what I will call my special filming I have a marked preference for film. I find the quality of the imagery of 16mm film, be it in B&W or colour, far outweighs that of video, and there is something which can hardly be explained about the creative pleasure one can get from seeing the results of one's work. That is not to say that I think that videographers do not get similar pleasure from their work.

What you say about the work of students is most interesting, and although I recognise that great strides have been made in digital imagery, it supports the view of many cinematographers that there is something about film which has not yet been captured by those developing the digital world. The two technologies involved are, or course, very different from each other and whether it is necessary to get to the point where digital imagery should get to the point where it is identical to that achieved by film imagery is, I think, a moot point.

Perhaps we should simply recognise that some will have a preference for film whilst others will have a preference for digital imagery and that it is unnecessary to go further.

[Angus]

You can spend all the money you want on R&D but you can not force people to drop an older system for a newer system.

Its not as if the dynamic is radically different between film and electronic formats...its just slower with film.

Various film formats *have* come, become popular, and gone. Try buying 110 or 126 products these days. Do we really think that Kodak et al deliberately created formats, then killed them to force people into buying new cameras?

All modern electronic products have a certain redundancy built in. Development is fast paced and (relatively) cheap compared to mechanical and electrical component systems. So to some extent the products are not built to last for decades. But again, that's not generally to 'force' you to buy something new. Would you really want to be using your 1994 Windows 3.11 laptop with a 486SLC processor and 9 inch screen today? Whereas a 1994 35mm camera is still very usable.

[carllooper]

A painter I know works in oils because of the smell of the paint. Acryllics fail to spark his imagination.

Along with synthesised clicks in digital cameras, synthesised engine sounds in electric cars, perhaps digital processing software could emit the smell of photochemistry.

It is ironic that the very thing which restores a sense of the analog in a DSLR - it's mechanical mirror - should prove a problem for alternative uses of the DSLR (such as animation and film transfer).

The digital domain is a discipline worthy of study and experiment in it's own right. Indeed, using digital to do things that are not intrinsically digital (such as photography, film making , word processing, etc) is completely artless. Albeit useful.

Some history.

When photography was first invented there many photographers who used all sorts of tricks to make their images look like paintings. They simply failed to understand that photography need not be a replacement for painting but a new discipline in it's own right. The seventh art as many called it. I have no idea what the other six are.

Digital is the eighth art. Or it should be.

In other words, if you are an artist working in the digital domain, the least interesting thing will be using digital to make "films". It would be the equivalent of those early photographers using photography to make "paintings". Completely artless. Missing the point.

If younger film makers are turning to film to make films it doesn't surprise me. They will be the ones that understand digital more than anyone else. They don't want to make second rate digital art. They want to make first-rate films.

Carl

[Angus]

If younger film makers are turning to film to make films it doesn't surprise me. They will be the ones that understand digital more than anyone else. They don't want to make second rate digital art. They want to make first-rate films.

Carl

As someone who thought just a few years ago that he'd never have any use for a digital camera....I have to agree here. Now I see that digital and film (still and movie) all have their places. Indeed as do still and moving pictures.

One will never imitate the other entirely. Whether I use a digital camera or film depends a lot on what the subject is and what I intend to do with the final product.

[MovieStuff]

A painter I know works in oils because of the smell of the paint. Acryllics fail to spark his imagination.

But that reflects the limitation of the painter; not a reflection of the medium's ability to produce a good product.

If younger film makers are turning to film to make films it doesn't surprise me. They will be the ones that understand digital more than anyone else.

If younger film makers are turning to film to make films, it also doesn't surprise me because of the built in prestige that comes from simply using the medium, even if the results are bad. As such, I do not believe their use of film will make them understand digital any better than someone painting in oils understands acrylics.

They don't want to make second rate digital art. They want to make first-rate films.

Who doesn't? But a first rate movie comes from good script, good direction, good acting and good production. The mere use of use of digital will not make a good movie bad any more than the use of film makes a bad movie good. And, let's face it, there are discussions on other forums where comments are "They don't want to make second rate super 8 art. They want to make first rate 35mm films."

There is always an attempt to recast bias as a rule. But the truth is that movie making is about matching the medium to the project. Painting in oils on a Friday for a Monday morning deadline would be foolish. Likewise, shooting in 35mm would technically be ideal but would be foolish on a 16mm budget. Budget affects creativity in ways that most people can't imagine if they've never had to meet a deadline and stay on budget. Attempts to avoid second rate digital art by depending on the prestige of film usually end up looking pretty crappy, from what I've seen, because film requires a larger budget that most students simply do not have at their disposal.

Roger

[super8man]

"It would be the equivalent of those early photographers using photography to make "paintings". Completely artless. Missing the point."

This caught my eye...while I do not disagree on the whole, it is interesting since there seems to be a new fad out there lately: printing on to "paper" that looks like oil canvas. Even going so far as to mount the picture on a wood frame, AROUND the outside of the wood frame...what comes around goes around. Now we should hear a bunch of backlash from oil painters and water color guys complaining about how digital photography (with this new fangled printing) is taking away from their craft. (A silly concept but it happens.) This whole thing reminds me of the vitriol comments about Kodachrome taking away from Ektachrome. I could never understand why those who hated Kodachrome wanted to see it gone. It seems like with digital, those folks that latch on to this newer technology must simultaneously destroy those that use older technology. Very strange.

FYI - the new "canvas" trend "as seen in the NYT": http://www.canvaspop.com/

hahaha....

[etimh]

But that reflects the limitation of the painter; not a reflection of the medium's ability to produce a good product.

Problematic statement here, Roger. You know as well as I that the specificity of these two different media (oils and acrylics), not only allow for different working methods and effects, but also produce very different final products. Any given painter with specific talents can "work" a medium to different results, but there are inherent limitations in the media that have nothing to do with the painter.

Agreed, this has little to do with producing a so-called "good" product (variable and ultimately subjective), but a "different" product cannot be denied. Oils allow you to work differently and thus produce something quite unique. Same with film vs. digital. But this inevitably supports all of your other comments about the unique possibilities inherent to each medium. Film is good for some things, digital for others.

Still doesn't prohibit me from liking one (film) over the other (digital), just as I prefer oil painting over acrylics.

Tim

[etimh]

I have no idea what the other six are...

Architecture, sculpture, painting, music, dance, and poetry.

Tim

[carllooper]

If younger film makers are turning to film to make films, it also doesn't surprise me because of the built in prestige that comes from simply using the medium, even if the results are bad. As such, I do not believe their use of film will make them understand digital any better than someone painting in oils understands acrylics.

The argument was not that working in film would make you a better digital artist. On the contrary, it was the opposite. That if you want to be a digital artist, making a movie is the least interesting thing you could do. But if you want to be amovie maker, then working in film is the most interesting thing you could do.

They don't want to make second rate digital art. They want to make first-rate films.

Who doesn't? But a first rate movie comes from good script, good direction, good acting and good production. The mere use of use of digital will not make a good movie bad any more than the use of film makes a bad movie good.

Making a movie (whether using scripts, good direction, good acting, good production, or not) won't make a digital work any better, since the decision to make a movie (which informs everything else) is the problem. Making a movie is the least interesting thing you can do in digital.

Writers such as Lev Manovich have identified this sort of thing in the world of digital. They propose alternative models from making movies, eg. making a database film. Shots are stored in a database and you interact with the shots through software. The shots+software is the completed work. One of Peter Greenaways "films" was shot in terms of this idea. It was never completed. It ended up as a movie instead. And completely tedious as a result (from my point of view).

There is always an attempt to recast bias as a rule. But the truth is that movie making is about matching the medium to the project.

I agree. The bias in this case is "movie making".

Painting in oils on a Friday for a Monday morning deadline would be foolish.

The solution is to start a week earlier or have the deadline extended. Simply changing mediums won't help if the deadline is for an oil painting class. Think outside the box.

Likewise, shooting in 35mm would technically be ideal but would be foolish on a 16mm budget.

Foolish? There are just resources (money, time, labor) of whatever limitation you want and what one can do with those resources. If you want to make a 35mm film, then make a shorter film than you otherwise could have on 16mm.

Budget affects creativity in ways that most people can't imagine if they've never had to meet a deadline and stay on budget.

Charlie Chaplin couldn't afford to have an actual train pull into a station for one of his films, so instead he shot someone standing on the train platform, with a shadow crossing their face. And he said it worked a lot better than if had shot the train.

An appreciation for this sort of thing (the random or syncronicity) can be traced back, at least as far as Dada. One can go further back to the I Ching. The 60s beat generation explored, to good effect, the remarkable world of the random.

Carl

[MovieStuff]

But that reflects the limitation of the painter; not a reflection of the medium's ability to produce a good product.

Problematic statement here, Roger. You know as well as I that the specificity of these two different media (oils and acrylics), not only allow for different working methods and effects, but also produce very different final products. Any given painter with specific talents can "work" a medium to different results, but there are inherent limitations in the media that have nothing to do with the painter.

Agreed, this has little to do with producing a so-called "good" product (variable and ultimately subjective), but a "different" product cannot be denied. Oils allow you to work differently and thus produce something quite unique. Same with film vs. digital. But this inevitably supports all of your other comments about the unique possibilities inherent to each medium. Film is good for some things, digital for others.

Still doesn't prohibit me from liking one (film) over the other (digital), just as I prefer oil painting over acrylics.

Tim

Agreed. But I was responding to whether the oil medium inspired the artist or not. I was not addressing the quality of the medium.

Roger

[carllooper]

A painter I know works in oils because of the smell of the paint. Acryllics fail to spark his imagination.

But that reflects the limitation of the painter; not a reflection of the medium's ability to produce a good product.

Yes, the painter has a limitation - he's unable to work in acryllics due to his addiction to oils. Similar addictions occur across other media. It need not be chemical.

However the anecdote wasn't meant to suggest acryllics are limited (or oils not so), but rather as an intro into the idea of the medium being important to the artist - the artist (amongst others) being the one that determines whether the results are good or otherwise.

Another artist could very well be addicted to acryllics and the point would still hold. The point can be further clarified by a famous theorist who once said: the medium is the massage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medium_Is_the_Massage

A quote from the Wikipedia article:

The title is a play on McLuhan's oft-quoted saying "The medium is the message". The book was initiated by Quentin Fiore.[1] McLuhan adopted the term "massage" to denote the effect each medium has on the human sensorium, taking inventory of the "effects" of numerous media in terms of how they "massage" the sensorium.

The premise is that one can organise artwork (rightly or wrongly) in terms of the mediums used.

Now this, I must admit, becomes a problem for something like digital. What exactly is the medium? It is undefined. It is this very fact that allows digital to infiltrate and emulate different media. It's object is information. And all other media has that component.

Gilles Deleuze is another author worth reading - in particular Cinema1 and Cinema2 - the former being somewhat more accesible than the later.

He refers to a way of organising filmmaking in terms of what he calls the "organic" on the one hand and the "crystalline" on the other. He treats both as equally interesting and explores their interoperability. Between homogenity (the crystalline, differences in degree) and heterogenity (the organic, differences in kind).

Carl